This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Make up your mind. Friend or associate? You say one, then imply the other.

Now a business associate is different. I should have specified, and I think Obomba has countless unethical friends rather than just associates.

The personal friends Obomba had in the past should have disqualified him from any ethical person's vote in my opinion.

I don't know anymore about how well Bush knew Ken Lay than anybody else does about how well Obama knew Ayres. Maybe just acquaintances, maybe business associates, maybe secret gay lovers....I'm not accusing, I just don't know.

Looks like it went beyond just being conservative only, unless you want to count teaching people about the Constitution as being conservative.

The IRS targeted groups that probably should have been targeted, but for the wrong reason. By definition 501(c)(4) groups are not allowed to have a predominatly politial purpose. Instead, that status is reserved for social welfare groups. Good examples of legitimate 501(c)(4) groups are the AARP and the NRA.

What happened in 2010 was that in the aftermath of Citizens United, corporations were suddenly allowed to contribute unlimited amounts of money to influence political campaigns. However, most corporations and CEO's didn't want to have their names and reputations associated with a candidate or position. They wanted to influence elections anonomously, gaining the benifits of supporting a candidate without the backlash from the other side.

By the spirit of the law, these groups should have been filed as tax exempt 527's which are intended primariliy to influence elections. By filing as a 527, they would have been allowed unlimited participation in politics and would have been excempt from the lengthy application process. However, they would have had to make their donors public. Instead they filed as 501(c)(4) groups for the sole purpose of hiding their donors.

In summary: 527's are allowed to be predominatly political, but must release donors. 501(c)(4)'s must not be predominatly political, are much harder to obtain, require far more paperwork, are subject to many more restrictions, but don't have to release donors.

After 2010 there was an explosion of these groups. Before Citizens' united there were around 1500. That doubled over the next year or so. The biggest push was amoung conservative groups. However, liberal groups were also guilty of this abuse.

Filing as a 501(c)(4) was an attempt by many of these groups to skirt the law. It's really impossible to read it any other way. The IRS rightly attempted to crack down on this abuse. However, it did it in a very un-American way. The guidleines should have targeted political groups in general, rather than singling out conservative issues.

This is a significant issue, and it warrents a thorough public investigation. However, it's nothing like Nixon's white house auditing members of the political opposition. For one, the head of the IRS was a Bush appointee.

I really don't see any problem with investigating teabaggers for tax evasion. After all it is a major platform of their party to not pay any taxes. In my honest opinion it is the job of the IRS to profile and investigate any group who rallies against paying taxes.
Its like the dept of homeland security investigating middle easterners who go to anti American rallies...That is what their job is to do.
If not them... Who?

You are right, in some cases the RWers are all for profiling, but in others, not so much...

Originally Posted by Buck Ewer

I really don't see any problem with investigating teabaggers for tax evasion. After all it is a major platform of their party to not pay any taxes. In my honest opinion it is the job of the IRS to profile and investigate any group who rallies against paying taxes.
Its like the dept of homeland security investigating middle easterners who go to anti American rallies...That is what their job is to do.
If not them... Who?

How is that defending the IRS, I pointed out a double standard on the right. In airports/elsewhere the right wingers are all for racial profiling, but one of the Tea Party's mantra is anti tax, so they IRS profiles them. Boom, the TP dont like profiling. IF I was defending the IRS I would be trying to defend profiling, I am not.

Originally Posted by nota bene

Which cases would those be?

What's so scary to me is that any citizen would defend the despicable actions of the IRS here.

How is that defending the IRS, I pointed out a
double standard on the right. In airports/elsewhere the right wingers are all for racial profiling, but one of the Tea Party's mantra is anti tax, so they IRS profiles them. Boom, the TP dont like profiling. IF I was defending the IRS I would be trying to defend profiling, I am not.

one of the safest airlines to fly on is El Al.

How do you think they maintain their record ? By harrasing blonde Hair Blue eyed little girls ?

Its no double standard.

Its just you trying to slink around the truth so you can defend your corrupt ideology.